News
SpaceX’s rocket reusability dream is within reach after fastest recovery yet
SpaceX and CEO Elon Musk’s rocket reusability dream appears to be within reach for the first time ever after technicians managed to retract the most recently-launched Falcon 9 booster’s landing legs and bring it horizontal in record time.
On the heels of a SpaceX’s second orbital-class Falcon 9 launch, landing, and recovery just this month, the recovery milestone could mean that booster B1059 is being prepared for the fastest turnaround in the company’s history. Together, with two Starlink launches now complete less than two weeks into June 2020 and a third internet satellite mission scheduled as early as June 22nd, the odds are better than ever that SpaceX will be able to pull off a record launch cadence heading into the second half of the year.
Averaged out, a sustained frequency of one launch every ~7 days would give SpaceX the ability to perform more than 50 orbital launches annually. In fact, just earlier this year, an environmental impact assessment completed for upgrades at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Pad 39A revealed plans for as many as 70 annual launches from SpaceX’s two Florida pads by 2023.
Technically, SpaceX has already demonstrated that those two Florida launch pads – KSC Pad 39A and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) LC-40 – are able to support 60-70 annual launches when pushed to their limits, with the latter pad recently performing two launches in just nine days for a potential maximum of 40 launches in one year. If SpaceX can pull off four Falcon 9 launches in 27 days, as it’s currently scheduled to do, the company will have already come a majority (75%) of the way to demonstrating that its fleet of Falcon rockets is also up to the task.
Currently the newest flown booster in SpaceX’s Falcon 9 fleet, the company has also wasted no time processing B1059 after ~8 am EDT return to Port Canaveral, kicking off landing leg retraction scarcely eight hours after berthing. B1059’s first sea recovery was also the second use of drone ship Of Course I Still Love You’s (OCISLY) upgraded Octagrabber, a tank-like robot used to keep technicians safe while remotely securing Falcon boosters on the high seas.
Octagrabber 2.0
By all appearances, SpaceX is using a new recovery method debuted with Falcon 9 booster B1058 earlier this month for the second time. With that significant operational tweak, the company no longer has to crane Falcon 9 boosters off of the drone ship before it can begin landing leg retraction – itself a process that’s barely a year old. By entirely supporting a booster with an upgraded Octagrabber robot and retracting its legs in situ, SpaceX can completely skip a recovery processing step, only lifting the rocket once it’s ready to be broken over (brought horizontal) and loaded onto a transporter.
Unsurprisingly, on its first use, the improved efficiency allowed SpaceX to process a booster faster than any before it, breaking the previous record of ~1.9 days from port arrival to departure on a horizontal transporter. Now, B1059 is already on pace to beat B1058’s weeks-old recovery turnaround record. Extra-efficient recovery processing and the unprecedentedly rapid booster reuse it could soon enable will be crucial if SpaceX hopes to sustain a cadence of 3-6 Falcon 9 launches per month over the next few years.
Such a cadence is a necessity for the expedient deployment of the 12,000 to 40,000-satellite Starlink internet constellation. With SpaceX all but guaranteed to demonstrate three Starlink launches in a single month (in fact, less than three weeks), the company is making rapid progress in the right direction.
Speeding through recovery
In fact, as of writing, Falcon 9 B1059 has already had all four landing legs retracted and was lifted off drone ship OCISLY, broken over, and placed on SpaceX’s custom booster transporter less than 10 hours after it arrived in port. A step further, SpaceX took an incredible 8-9 hours after docking to bring the booster horizontal, crushing the previous record – ~27 hours – by a factor of three or more.
Given that unprecedented expediency, it wouldn’t be crazy to imagine that SpaceX could be aiming for a record-breaking booster turnaround on one of its next few Starlink launches, scheduled June 22nd and sometime in July. Held by the late booster B1056, SpaceX’s current turnaround record (the time between two launches) is 62 days, while the company and CEO Elon Musk’s ultimate reusability goal is to fly the same booster twice in just 24 hours.
Drone ship recoveries, of course, will almost always require at least a few extra days to travel back to port. Still, the fact that 99% of the processing needed to transport a booster can now be finished in as few as ~8 hours is the first unequivocal proof that a 24-hour turnaround is within SpaceX’s reach – so long as the rocket lands on land or the time in transit is excluded.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
